Post navigation

Still in denial?

SYP tried to instruct that Rik remove an article from RothPol. There was the usual statement about how it interfered with an ongoing trial, and a threat that action might be taken if it remained. Rik refused….

It’s about a seriously flawed SYP investigation into Jahangir Akhtar and a Policeman who between them arranged for Arshid Husssain (aka Ash) to go free if he released his victim. At the resulting “service station victim swap” Akhtar was present to ensure that Ash was both let go free and his interests protected…not the child victim.

Ash has just received a prison sentence of 35 years for sexually abusing and exploiting children, and at the time of the handover was at the peak of his criminality. We can only guess at how many times he abused children after that opportunity to arrest him was thrown away, how many crack addicts he created, how many families he destroyed.

Back to Police efforts to get that article retracted.

After this SYP interference, separately the Guardian reported that in Court “The prosecution confirmed on Friday that there was no reason to believe there were active police investigations into Jahangir Akhtar.”

SYP’s action against RothPol raise concern that they are still prioritising protection for themselves and their friends above protection of the public interest.

The article article pointed out that the investigation into it by SYP in 2013 was a farce that could be interpreted as an attempted cover up. That senior Police officers must have determined the pathetic structure of the investigation. That given Akhtar’s role as Deputy Chair of the main Police scrutiny committee, the Chief Constable surely must have been briefed as to progress.

The attempted interference with RothPol is in the context that since around 2000 various agencies, even a few councillors and journalists did realise the extent and significance of street grooming in Rotherham. And many were told by the Police that, guess what?

“Saying/reporting anything would interfere with ongoing investigations and may prevent prosecutions taking place.” Investigations that normally did nothing.

Move forward to 2016 and in court we learn..

That the Hussain brothers despite their notoriety were never investigated, and hear allegations that corrupt Police and a senior Councillor actually conspired to protect child sex abusers.

That there was sufficient evidence for these criminals to have been stopped 11 years ago, but the Police did not act.

That the Jury appear to have believed Jessica’s version of the “service station victim swap” , rather than the Police’s farcical inquiry and their resulting denial that it took place.

Move forward to 2016 and we have an attempt by SYP to stop an honest and legitimate article about the Police’s so called inquiry being posted on RothPol.

An article whose offence is NOT to interfere with justice….Akhter, for heavens know what reason, apparently isn’t being investigated and the significant Police officer is dead.

No, it is reasonable to at least suspect that this latest interference by SYP is because it suggests senior officers may in that first inquiry have covered up and acted to protect Akhtar and themselves…and now the attempt to suppress an article in this blog suggests an effort to cover up their initial cover up.

Russian dolls, a bit John le Carre….but those officers, and maybe the Chief Constable know who they are.

Mary B Jospehs

Note:

Text of email received from South Yorkshire Police

Good morning,

It has been brought to our attention that your website is posting articles relating to the ongoing Rotherham child sexual exploitation trial, Operation Clover. The senior investigating officer has contacted us with some concerns and advises that some of the content is factually inaccurate.

Can I ask if you have a representative in court or how you are receiving information about the court proceedings? You are only protected by absolute privilege (or indeed, qualified privilege) if you have produced a fair and accurate report of proceedings. The concerns raised by the officer who is at court suggests that this is not the case and therefore this places you at risk.

This potentially also places you at risk of being in contempt of court, as it could be determined that the inaccuracies contained within your report could affect the trial.

Can I suggest that you check the accuracy of your copy and come back to me if there are any issues.

30 thoughts on “Still in denial?”

So, can we have the names of the ‘officers’ issuing these thoroughly obnoxious threats.
And since when have dipstick ‘media’ staff been authorised to threaten people.
If there are inaccuracies, what are they?
SYP are of course really well known for their honest and professional approach to the public, er, does the term Hillsborough ring any bells?

Perhaps Lesley and/or the YP Media Team in Corporate Communications at SYP are members of or in cahoots with, ‘Hacked Off’ whose primary purpose in life is to stop legitimate reporting of established facts? Or perhaps the tentacles of Common Purpose are trying to reach out?
How very strange that SYP suddenly ‘discovered’ Rothpol’s recent report on Akhtar when his misdeeds have been published on here for years.
If SYP’s ‘Media Team’ read or attend management seminars let me repeat a well known (hackneyed) phrase:
“Get with the programme”.

I rather feel that neither Hacked Off nor Common Purpose …. nor any other variant of Godwin’s law need invoking, Colin.
AS I read Lesley of YP (shouldn’t that be SYP??) Media Team’s communication, she is simply passing on an instruction by the senior investigating officer on Operation Clover , and I see no reference to Akhar in it.

What is and what is the requirement of a Police force to have a ‘media team’ : Is it an Orwellian re-newsing operation, a PR front, a complete waste of other peoples money, gate keeping operation, social media monitoring for cracking down on thought crime, or just a gentle intimidation project?

Well done Rik for once again sticking to your guns, they obviously have no idea who they are dealing with. This blog has played a major part in exposing the cover up by the police, the council and MPs, where were the police years ago? When they were rally needed, they should be concentrating on catching the rest of the perpetrators not threatening an honest man.
Dave Smith

A appropriate question for Rev. Billings would be why does he need to raise the precept by 3.5% when he could save some money by closing down Corporate Communications, a department for which there is no statutory requirement?

The rev Billings has already shown himself to be an irrelevance…at a recent meeting he praised Rotherham LP for inviting Jay in to undertake her inquiry…seems he doesn’t know that they were kicked until they conceded an inquiry.

There is also enough going on for him to be asking publicly questions of the Chief Constable as to his role regarding the inquiry into the “service station victim handover” and the failure to investigate Jahangir Akhtar …but then again Akhtar like Billings is Labour…no conflict of interest there then

In systems audit you can see above the classic wedding cake diagram. Next is needed an assessment of conduct before any appraisal of effective performance can be deduced.
It is perfectly possible for the uniforms to keep the PCC in the dark for some considerable time by what is NOT referred back up the chain before active lies are even considered.
To get anywhere as a PCC in this structure you must needs be a bit of a beast.

Jargon term for Structure diagram as above.
Generally the number of tiers are a crude indicator of inefficiency. Local Authorities have had between three and eleven tiers of management with inefficiency crudely seen as at the extremes of numbers of tiers. The Police diagram is inconclusive as to efficiency by itself. You need also look at conduct (how people in structure interrelate) and that is not in the public domain.